Coffee,Tea,or Should We Feel Your Pregnant Wifes Breasts Before Throwing You in a Cell attheAirport?

lewrockwell.com ^ | 12/18/2002 | Nicholas Monahan

[TaZ]

Hmmm...seems like 30+ cities (Drudge reports some 60 more are ready to follow) who have passed ordinances to defy the federal government on implementing aspects of the Patriot Act...claiming parts of it are un-constitutional.

I guess these people are a bunch of wild-eyed, tinfoil hat wearing conspiracy nuts too?

Looks like some people are starting to wake up.

[Bob Mc]

I asked about "hired columnists", not "crackpots".

Would Free Republic hire "crackpot" columnists, only to end up discrediting itself?

Do you think that this is what LewRockwell.com is doing?

[Bob Mc]

"Looks like some people are starting to wake up."

I so very much hope so!

[tgslTakoma]

Thanks for the homework assignment. I read some of the first 100 replies and think I get it... but I'm not even gonna bother to respond to all the ignorant comments I read. A baby gestates not in the mother's breasts, but in the belly; so, if the "terrorist hunters'" goal was to find a bambino bomb, his/her story would be more convincing if he spent more time feeling up her belly.

Since I'm not now in an airport, I don't think I'm breaking any homeland security laws by stating here that I think the TSA's new so called anti-terror M.O. is BS.

As for your last question, you still have a very poor friend. :-) I'll still buy you lunch, though.

[RightOnline]

"If anyone it is to blame, other than these particular nitwits, it is Little Tommy Daschle, who insisted that all airline security jobs should be federalized, and President Bush, for going along with him rather than fighting it."

Absolutely. Ditto. Amen and amen.

[RGSpincich]

I asked about "hired columnists", not "crackpots".

And I am going to move off of that "hired columnist" contention, I confused this author with another, sorry. Looks like he is just a "crackpot". Here is a list of LewRockwell's columnists. Columnists and Commentators

[Bob Mc]

"Looks like he is just a "crackpot".

So, LewRockwell.com allows articles from "crackpots" to get published?

If they hire columnists, then I assume they are a news organization. Since they state they are "anti-statist" I also assume they are not just another liberal rag, but are right wing.

So explain to me, why would a right wing Internet News site allow bogus stories from "crackpots" to get published?

Again, wouldn't you think they would be concerned about their future credibility when this crackpot is eventually shot down?

Seems to me LewRockwell.com is commercial and depends on advertizers. Could they continue to keep business if they lose credibility?

I don't see how you can dismiss this article based on the source. Perhaps there is something I don't know about LewRockwell.com.

[Bob Mc]

Holy cow! I have read many articles from several of these LewRockwell columnists! Talk about credibility! Some are awfully popular people here at Free Republic. I see and enjoy their articles here often!

Really, I seriously doubt a conservative right wing organization with these kind of columnists is an unreliable source as you contend. (Are you a liberal/democrat disrupter perhaps?)

I think I'll start visiting this LewRockwell.com. Thanks for the pointer.

[ChemistCat]

Actually, this has been a wonderfully informative thread. I'd really like to see what someone who comes here uncertain of his/her opinion on the matter thinks after reading these thousand-plus posts. What is most extraordinary to me is that anyone can believe these security measures are effective and put their faith in them. There have been SEVERAL highjacking attempts since 9/11 , and several people going bonkers and trying to get into the cockpit. Every would-be highjacker got through security...and every one was stopped by passengers and crew who were deprived of the means of deadly force. Now I guess that's a good thing if you can stop a bad guy with fists and blankets. So far, so good. But if Al-Qaeda has plans to recapitulate 9/11, we don't know about them...and I have no doubt that if they try, they can evade any and all security we can afford to put into place. We also seem to have a lot of people who don't mind being touched by strangers, even in a businesslike way, and who cannot accept that to some of us it is a profoundly painful experience. All right, believe that I'm warped to feel that way about it. When the airlines go bankrupt, please remember that it is people like myself who were completely excluded from buying tickets by invasions of our fundamental rights that we find unacceptable. "If you don't like it, don't fly" is an attitude that is going to cost us all flight. You won't be able to fly either when the airlines shut down. (Post picture here of the hundreds of mothballed commercial jets lined up neatly in the desert...can't find it, unfortunately.) On a humorous note, my mother-in-law told me, "HEY! You shut up about that! That's the only chance to be groped by anybody that I've got left!"

[all4one]

Scientifically, touching the breasts of a pregnant woman could release the hormone prolactin. This hormone could trigger many things including pre-mature labor.

I don't think our forefathers would encourage our government to believe that they have the right to infringe on the citizens personal rights in the name of supposed "safety". Meanwhile there are probably undocumented illegals working at the airport in foodservice, security and other employment positions that would indeed cause concern for everyone's safety!

[Abundy]

Not sure...haven't Sheperdized it lately. BTW - I was commenting on the Maryland's requirements to pass the muster before our Court of Appeals. It is an interesting read and it isn't often I disagree with Rhenquist and Scalia. In that case I do.

The Dissent is more in line with previous 4th Amendment cases and contains a discussion regarding the original subject of this thread. Even the dissent in Sitz would likely agree that security checkpoints in airports are constitutional - if there was a proper protocol in place that eliminates arbitrary decisions by the screeners.

In this case, any screen of a female should be done in private by two female screeners and the subject of the screening should be allowed to have her husband/family member accompany her into the private area. I'm not sure how to handle a female traveling alone.

[general_re]

But when it's the government telling me that I can't ride in your car without submitting to a search, then they're getting out of line.

Is this one of your not-a-libertarian arguments? ;)

It's "we the people" who told you you can't get on an airplane without being searched. We decided, as a society, to elect representatives who would act to help prevent airline hijackings. The people who brought this to you was all of us, your friends and neighbors. No totalitarian imposition of airport searches was necessary - we asked for this.

And, of course, "we" includes you. If you happen to disagree with what we have done, the proper remedy is, as always, to convince "we" to change our minds.

[general_re]

Two posts I can't resist. ;)

Actually, the way to begin is by getting the federal government out of the process altogether, and allow the airlines themslelves to have full and absolute discretion over: - who gets to work for them, and who doesn't; - who's allowed to carry a weapon on board, and who isn't; - who's allowed on board at all, and who isn't; - and who gets intensively searched, and who doesn't.

Suppose for a moment that came to pass, and you were in charge of an airline. Would you screen passengers for weapons before boarding? If so, would it be more or less stringent than current requirements? Would you search everyone, certain types of people, or just random folks?

TIA.

[inquest]

Is this one of your not-a-libertarian arguments?

Huh?!

It's "we the people" who told you you can't get on an airplane without being searched. We decided, as a society, to elect representatives who would act to help prevent airline hijackings. The people who brought this to you was all of us, your friends and neighbors. No totalitarian imposition of airport searches was necessary - we asked for this.

And does the Constitution fit into this equation anywhere, or is that irrelevant?

[inquest]

I'm not a professional when it comes to these things, but in general, I'd keep in mind what someone at El Al once said about our practices: "In America, you search for weapons. In Israel, we search for terrorists." Their approach seems to have served them well for the most part. As such, I'd go heavier on the profiling side (not just ethnically, either, but on all aspects of a scientifically valid profile), and probably go a little easier on weapons in general. If it means that a terrorist slips by with a weapon, it would also mean that the other passengers are armed as well, and so his effectiveness would be, shall we say, diminished.

But like I said, I'm not an expert.

[inquest]

My family wouldn't fly on a carrier that would skrimp on security, perfect target for hijack attempts.

So I take this to mean that your family wouldn't fly on any carriers in operation today, seeing as how they don't live up to the standards you posted at #928? You started off saying that we'd be begging for protection from such oppressiveness, and now you're suggesting that people wouldn't be satisfied with anything less. My position is simple: Let the market decide.

[RGSpincich]

Really, I seriously doubt a conservative right wing organization with these kind of columnists is an unreliable source as you contend. (Are you a liberal/democrat disrupter perhaps?)

Think again. This writer is a frustrated liberal playwright who didn't get his way at the airport and had a tempertantrum. Conservative you say? HA! This guy wrote a short lived play that ran in L.A. , the play (Jimmy Christ)was a comedy done in bad taste about Jesus and his family. Blasphemy is not a conservative trait the last time I checked. The one review I was able to find blasted it.

In a television-oriented mush of bad old jokes played like outtakes from Leave It to Beaver, playwright Nicholas Monahan takes a totally sophomoric view of the Holy Family that from beginning to end is infantile and dull. Why this company chose to do it boggles the imagination.

Link

The following is another example of the fine conservative values exhibited by this author and associates.

PETE TO PLAY JOSEPH IN COMEDY ABOUT JESUS

It's official. Pete Punito, one half of the singing duo Natural Phenomenon Ocean, has been hand plucked to play the part of Joseph in Nick Monahan's "Jimmy Christ". The play will run throughout the entire month of June at L.A.'s famed Space Theater. Also appearing in the play is none other than Panos Koronus. What does it mean to the band now that Punito is experiencing his first taste of acting stardom? "I like acting," responded Punito, "but my first love is that shit I do with Breakfast."

Link

____________________________________________________________

I would place absolutely no value in this author's writings. No corroboration, no mention of the incident in any other publication, no interviews with the screeners, etc. No facts, this is a hypothetical at best.

[RGSpincich]

No I'm saying that once there is a distinct difference in the security from one airline to the other, customers will flock to the safer one and terrorists will flock to the less protected. The market will decide which suits the needs of the public. In today's market, security is pretty much equal across the board and there are no distinct targets for terrorists.

[alpowolf]

(Sorry to join late...I couldn't log on this weekend)

While I agree that getting hysterical is never a helpful response to a difficult situation, I think that all of the discussion assessing the correctness of the author's response is missing the point. You (and some others here) seem to be saying that the only appropriate response to arrogant behavior by govt officials is to blandly accept it. I don't agree. Just "bucking up" and letting these willful children have their way is wrong.

If we're going to question anybody's judgement here, I think the response of the authorities should come under scrutiny. Having been in positions of authority myself, I apply a ruthless double standard to the behavior and judgement of those to whom authority has been delegated. I expect such people to be able to make sensible judgements and not simply resort to force to resolve any difficult situation. A distraught husband who shouts at me needs to get control of himself but he is NOT committing a crime. Someone who cannot handle such a situation without resorting to mindless force has no business being in a position of authority.

I think that any place where an arrogant petty bureaucrat abuses his/her authority is a good place to "make a stand". If more of us did this we wouldn't have it happening so much. It is possible to make a stand for your dignity without going hysterical. If you think your dignity isn't worth defending, then it doesn't exist.

[RGSpincich]

You started off saying that we'd be begging for protection from such oppressiveness,

I said that the poster I was addressing at the time would be "begging for protection" not me.